


bV* 














A™ , O * O - V) 

































** v % 




O * - 



^ ? 



*q, 



V<N 




«** ..' 






SX 






s?v\. 










.** 



^0* 



^°- 




"bV" 



»- ^. 



•* ^ 



°* *•" A "b, *.T.° .^ <-b *..,•■ .0' "b. ♦. 






^T> yv 



O > 




V* 










v^ : ^ii^ a v ^u o^^f^* c,^^- 



sP^, 




^0^ 



♦ «*Stas*»* V 






$q* 







. • » .• - <• 




,.0 c 







>c> 












^of 



fo.°. ^ .c> *' 



* ^>. 




4 o 
* * *^ * 








V % •« • 

















L*' > 











»bv* 


















• v «v .<*" 






•■ ^\ 























V 9 ^ 

4 A o* '^>^TTT*' A 




, 




- ^o-* ?'. 



• «*" 





























•W 



V* 1 ^** ^ 



. *> 







^ 



aT .*••« *** 



<* *••*• .0^ 



%&+ . 






to. '* 




^o* 









P .*1^L'* %> 



^ * • « ° -^ 



►♦ 4 * 



-^ 




V »i\?- «\. 






4 ->* W\ 









T77«\ A 












°°«. 




,.. ** 






" ° * C* 







A V» V ..^.. 












*0 - . * 



\d **7y7* v <\ 



r <i°JsJ'* ( . c> 



? ..■ 



^ 

^ 



^ (V r " ° -9 ,f > 
















> ^ 











refill' ^ 









W 




^0< • 






«*<^ 











rF o » o "^, 










.' ^ "*- 



,^ v % °SP' /% -.flK.- ♦♦*% : . 



s 



l'\ 












$!)£ Mtxxcan tUar. 



z 1 ' 

A 



SERMON 



DELIVERED ON THE 



ANNUAL THANKSGIVING, 



AT CONWAY, MASS., 



NOVEMBER 26, 1846. 



PASTOR OF THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN CONWAY. 



BY SAMUEL HARRIS, 

CONGREGATIONAL CHUR 

Published by Request, 



GREENFIELD : 
MERRIAM AND MIRICK, PRINTERS. 

1847. 



H 6~& 



/ 



v>% 



SERMON. 



HABAKKUK, 2 : 12. Wo to him that btjildeth a town with 

BLOOD, AND ESTABLISHETH A CITY BY INIQUITY ! 

It would be pleasing to dwell to day on the agree- 
able topics which the grateful review of a year may 
always suggest. But a more painful subject seems to 
demand our attention. For the first time in more 
than thirty years, we find ourselves involved in war 
with a foreign nation. It is an event too important 
in its bearings to be passed over in silence by the 
minister of the gospel. 

The pastor is appointed as a watchman over the 
interests of morality and religion. According to the 
perfect ideal of his office, it is his business, rising 
above the bias of party or sect, above partiality or 
fear, or any selfish consideration, to plead for hu- 
manity against all wrongs, to proclaim the truth in its 
severe and simple majesty, and to vindicate all God's 
claims on men. In the discharge of this duty, he is 
called to speak upon all the relations and spheres of 
action belonging to human life ; for man cannot act 
except as a moral and accountable being. If the 
minister sees men acting on principles contrary to the 



4 

gospel, if he sees measures adopted which are under- 
mining morality and religion, whether in politics, in 
trade, or in whatever department of action, he is not 
only justified in speaking, but forbidden, under awful 
penalties, to be silent. 

There are, indeed, difficulties attending the discus- 
sion of political affairs in the pulpit. If the preacher 
has any political preferences himself, as it will be 
strange if he has not, there is danger of his passing 
beyond the moral and religious, to the purely political 
bearings of public measures, and thus, by passing 
from the pastor into the partisan and turning the pul- 
pit into a rostrum, of sullying the purity and destroy- 
ing the influence of his ministerial office. On the 
other hand, there are diversity of opinion and strong 
party feeling among his hearers, and the consequent 
danger of being misconstrued and of giving offence. 
This, however, is no reason for silence. The preach- 
er can have no respect for himself and deserves none 
from his hearers, who models his preaching only by 
the desire to please. If his office has any claim to be 
an embassy from God, the preacher must be guided 
in what he says simply by the will of Him who sent 
him. 

Actuated by these views, I am constrained to pass by 
all more grateful themes, more consonant though they 
be with this day of praise and joy, and direct your 
attention to the Mexican war. While I approach the 
subject, influenced by no ill will toward any man or 
any party — least of all toward the government with 
which the interests and honor of the nation must al- 
ways be identified, — while I shall try to state nothing 
which is not fact, and to comment on facts in kindness 



and candor, 1 shall aim also to speak in freedom what 
seems to me the truth. If any sentiments are ad- 
vanced contrary to the convictions of any of you, I 
only ask you to give these sentiments a candid consid- 
eration and to judge of them by reason, conscience, 
and God's word. Nor do I expect to say aught with 
which any of you will be offended — having learned by 
experience that your minister has nothing to fear in 
uttering his honest convictions on subjects that are 
called difficult and delicate, and that you desire to have 
him, as good John Bunyan expresses it, "say out his 
say," untrammeled and unawed, on all points legiti- 
mately belonging to his vocation. 

The text implies that a woe rests on every one who 
builds himself up by iniquity, violence, and blood. I 
do not intend to discuss this general principle, but 
have chosen the passage as a motto for the remarks 
which I am about to make. Of its truth, however, I 
fear that the Mexican war will add another sad and 
striking example to the multitudes which history re- 
cords. Perhaps, in the cursory examination which 
we shall be able to give the subjeet this morning, we 
shall find enough to convince us that the woe of vio- 
lent and bloody aggrandizement is already making 
itself felt upon our country. 

From your acquaintance with my general senti- 
ments, you all understand, no doubt, as well before I 
say it, as afterwards, that I consider this war as evil, 
and " only evil continually." We have indeed re- 
ceived grievances from Mexico. In reading the list 
of these grievances as presented by the President in 
his message announcing hostilities, and in newspapers 
which justify the war — " the grievous wrongs inflicted 



on our citizens by Mexico through a long period 
of years," the refusal of all reparation, the violation 
of treaty stipulations, the breaking off of all diplo- 
matic intercourse with us, and the refusal to receive 
our embassador sent to seek its renewal — I feel no 
disposition to deny that we can make out quite as 
plausible a case as has been made out to justify half of 
the wars of Christendom. This " faint praise" we 
may concede, and concede it, too, without saying a 
word of the alleged invasion of our soil — a pretext 
which seems unworthy to be seriously urged as a jus- 
tification of the war, since — it being a disputed ter- 
ritory which the two armies occupied — Mexico might 
as properly consider the march of our army across 
the Nueces an invasion of her soil, as we the march 
of her army across the Rio Grande, an invasion of 
ours — since at that very moment and for a long time 
previous, Great Britain had given us a precisely simi- 
lar occasion of war by occupying with her forts and 
armies the disputed territory claimed by us in Oregon 
north of 49°. This alleged invasion of our soil was 
urged at first as the grand reason for the war. It is 
pleasing to notice a growing disposition to insist less 
on this, and to rest the justification of the war on 
other grievances. So it would seem that every can- 
did person must do, now that the first excitement is 
passing away, and be ready by this time to own that 
this is in no sense a defensive war on our part. 

But when, on the other side, I consider what serious 
grievances Mexico had sustained from us, it seems to 
me that, even on principles no higher than those by 
which governments profess to be governed, the war is 
unjustifiable, and this nation is accountable for its exist- 



ence and its calamities. We are told by its advocates 
how much the honor of our country is advanced by 
our victories, and how all nations will be taught there- 
by to respect the American name and not to trifle 
with our rights. But I have a painful foreboding that 
history will point " the slow, unmoving finger of 
scorn" at these very triumphs, and that every advance 
made by our armies will but lower us from the high 
and honorable position to which, as a nation regulating 
our intercourse with other nations by the love of 
peace and a sacred regard to justice, we have hitherto 
been entitled. This war might not have been thought 
dishonorable five hundred years ago. But it does 
look incompatible with the light of this age ; it does 
look dishonorable for a nation, pre-eminent as ours is 
in this age of advancement, to be crushing so feeble 
a neighbor for causes no more important. 

But with me it is comparatively a small question, 
whether this war is, or is not more dishonorable than 
others. I condemn it on the higher principles taught 
in the gospel of love and peace. Since the Bible 
sanctions civil government and teaches that the mag- 
istrate beareth not the sword in vain, government 
may be justified in forcibly suppressing insurrection 
and repelling invasion. We may, perhaps, make im- 
aginary suppositions of wars which this principle 
would justify. But wars, as they actually exist, are 
very different matters. It may reasonably be expect- 
ed that no war, which the gospel can justify, will ever 
be waged in all coming time. 

We may, then, dismiss all further discussion of the 
causes of the war, and proceed to some points inti- 
mately connected with the war itself. 



8 

I. The war has shown us the wide prevalence of 
the dangerous sentiment, that when war is once de- 
clared, it is taking sides with the enemy to deny either 
the justice or the wisdom of commencing and prose- 
cuting it. This sentiment is concentrated into that 
maxim, " Our country, right or wrong." 

If my country is embarked in an enterprise neither 
wise nor just, I will not turn against her as an enemy, 
nor wish ill to betide her. I shall still remember, 

" This is my own, my native land ;" 

and with all the tender recollections which that thought 
awakens, with all the aspirations for her prosperity 
which a son should feel, my language will be — 

" With all thy faults, I love thee still." 

But when my country is in the wrong, I am 
bound to do my utmost to point out and correct 
that wrong. In so doing, I am showing the purest 
patriotism and performing the part of the most faith- 
ful friendship. When, in the revolution, Great Britain 
was warring unjustly against the United States, that 
great orator, Lord Chatham, raised his voice in Par- 
liament in tones of indignant remonstrance against it. 
Edmund Burke, too, opposed it with all the energies 
of his gigantic mind. And have not the events of 
history long since given their verdict, that these men 
were friends of their country, wiser and more deserv- 
ing to be trusted than they who vindicated the war ? 

The maxim — " Our country, right or wrong" — 
which forbids the people to oppose a war because it is 
begun, and browbeats them into silence about every 



act of violence and blood which government may 
sanction, is both wicked and dangerous. 

It is a wicked maxim. It is taking sides with in- 
iquity ; it is trampling on the eternal distinction be- 
tween right and wrong ; it is declaring that God's law 
is a nullity ; it is sustaining injustice, and robbery, and 
murder, when the energies of a whole nation, aided 
by all the enginery that ingenuity can invent, and 
wielded with all the skill that educated talents can 
apply, are concentrated on perpetrating the crime, 
and villages and cities, provinces and states are the 
broad field over which its desolations spread. What ? 
shall government take on itself to declare an unjust 
war, and, the moment it is done, must all the people 
say, " Amen ?" Must we call it glory to pay the 
taxes, to pour out the blood of ourselves or our sons 
to carry it on ? Must Christians come to the altar 
and pray for God's blessing on injustice ? Must we 
brand with infamy every man who speaks, and every 
convention that passes resolutions against it ? What 
authority has government to vote wrong into right, 
and lay every man under ban and interdict that dares 
to question their doings ? Verily, this is morality, 
which will not bear scrutiny in the High Chancery of 
Heaven. 

The maxim is as dangerous as it is wicked. The 
events of the past few months show us that it is in the 
President's power to plunge the nation in war. He 
has only to order the army or navy to some act of 
aggression, and hostilities are begun. Now what is 
the dangerous influence of the maxim on which we 
are commenting ? Under its influence, Congress 
without taking any time for reflection, declare that 



10 

war exists, and, as if the commencement of hostilities 
must of necessity leave no place for discussion or 
opposition, scarce any lift their voices to resist or to 
demand investigation. I say, under the influence of 
this maxim ; for it is plain that, but for the impression 
which had seized the minds of Congress, that it was 
too late to discuss or to oppose without dishonor, the 
President never could have brought us into our present 
position. There is a broad distinction between the 
commencement of hostilities and the declaration of 
war. Hostilities are of not infrequent occurrence on 
the borders of contiguous countries. Yet they do not 
necessarily lead to war, since the war-making power 
may disclaim the hostilities and settle the quarrel 
peaceably. Hostilities have commenced twice within 
a few years between us and Great Britain ; once on 
the disputed territory in Maine, and once in the seizure 
of the steamboat Caroline. Each time we had a nar- 
row escape from war ; yet the government so acted 
that we did escape it. Therefore the commencement 
of hostilities imposes on Congress no necessity of de- 
claring or prosecuting a war. If they do it, the 
responsibility is their own. And now, when, as in the 
cases just cited, only on a larger scale, hostilities, 
equally unauthorized by the war-making power, have 
commenced on the disputed territory between us and 
Mexico, and the President announces the fact to Con- 
gress, is Congress released from all responsibility and 
placed under necessity of recognizing the war ? Com- 
mon sense answers, No. Facts in our past history 
answer, No. The constitution, which vests the war- 
making power in Congress and holds them responsible 
for preserving and exercising that right, answers, No, 



11 

If, as we are told, members of Congress then believed 
that the President had, by his own act, unwarrantably 
and unwisely plunged us into war, and thus been 
guilty of an unconstitutional usurpation, they had the 
power of impeachment, and were accountable for its 
exercise. The least that any one, holding such sen- 
timents, should have done, would have been to vote 
to repudiate the President's course and to call on him 
to retrace his steps. Or, if this is more than there 
was any possibility of effecting, they might yet have 
refused to declare or recognize a war, and have 
adopted energetic measures at once to rescue our 
army from its imagined peril, and to bring hostilities 
to a speedy end. But instead of this, behold a formal 
recognition of war, and a declaration that it existed, 
not by the act, much less by the fault of the President, 
but by the act of Mexico — and all this carried with 
eagerness, with enthusiasm, with indecent haste. It 
is wrong for members of Congress, who voted thus to 
sustain and vindicate the President, to try to screen 
themselves from responsibility by throwing all the 
blame on him. The declaration which has come to 
us from high authority, " Nobody voted for the war ; 
nobody but the President made it," is a great mistake. 
An impartial review of facts compels us to hold Con- 
gress, a noble few excepted, responsible with the 
President for the existence of the war. If the Presi- 
dent began it, Congress, with full power to arrest, 
sustained it. I say these things not to vindicate the 
President All that worlds can buy, would not tempt 
me to take the responsibility which he has assumed in 
provoking this war. But facts compel me to add that 
scarcely less fearful is the responsibility of those who 



12 

voted that war exists by the act of Mexico. And here 
is the danger from the maxim of which we speak, that it 
enables the President, by provoking hostilities, to bind 
Congress under an imagined necessity to forget their 
own responsibility and to recognize or declare war, 
contrary to their own convictions of right ; and thus 
to turn Congress into a set of puppets to do his will. 

This maxim is as really dangerous, so far as it has 
influence among the people : no man opens his lips 
against the war; its causes and management are not 
scrutinized. His worst enemies do not charge our 
present chief magistrate with any intention of stretch- 
ing his own prerogative. But we can suppose the 
case of an ambitious President, aiming to enlarge 
and perpetuate his power. He has only to provoke 
some other nation to hostilities, and then to rely on 
this maxim for sufficient aid in doing the rest. Sup- 
plies will be profusely voted ; the enthusiastic people 
will second and sustain the warlike measures; this 
only will be thought patriotic, every other course, dis- 
graceful ; the victories will be hailed as brilliant acces- 
sions to the nation's glory ; and it will need only the 
ordinary ability of ambitious leaders to enable the 
President, by taking advantage of the enthusiasm cre- 
ated by this false sentiment, to usurp the government 
and destroy our liberties. If this is at present an 
unlikely supposition, we are taking the course most 
rapidly to remove its improbability. It is the tendency 
of war, as all history shows, to bring uneasy heroes 
into being, to nourish their ambition, and to furnish 
them with tools and opportunities to gratify it ; and at 
the same time, to prepare for their success by intoxi- 
cating the people with military ardor, and fitting them 



13 

to confound the interests of their country with the 
interests of its Caesar, and patriotism with loyalty to 
him. If happily, the sentiment which we are consid- 
ering is not yet strong and prevalent enough to chain 
us to the car of a Caesar or a Bonaparte, let us be 
wary how we give it strength. And we may do well 
to remember that there are other nefarious designs, 
less glaring than the one supposed, yet full of mis- 
chief, which may be carried through at will, if the 
commencement of hostilities must compel us to sup- 
port a war, and the power of a perverted public sen- 
timent is to forbid us rigidly to scrutinize it and freely 
to speak our dissatisfaction. 

This false notion of patriotism had its origin when 
the world was governed by despots. A fit instrument 
it is for their purposes, cajoling the people into the 
belief that, if government plunge them into war, pa- 
triotism and honor demand that they sustain it to the 
last drop of their blood. It is a sentiment fit only for 
tyrants and for slaves ; fitted to make even a free gov- 
ernment, despotic, and free citizens, slaves. Freemen 
may scrutinize their rulers' acts. As war is the worst 
evil our rulers can inflict, we should cherish, as one of 
our dearest rights, the right to scrutinize their wars, 
and to proclaim, with trumpet voice, their inexpedi- 
ency or wickedness. Strange, when we hold our 
rulers to so strict an accountability on other points, 
that we go so far toward releasing them from all ac- 
countability on this vital point of making war ; and 
suffer ourselves to be duped into the belief that, the 
moment hostilities, by whatever folly or wickedness, 
are commenced, there is nothing for us, but to throw 
up our caps and shout, " Our country, right or 



14 

wrong," and count it all glory to bear the burdens 
and fight the battles which our rulers order. 

The Mexican war has shown that this maxim of 
despotism is prevalent and powerful among us, and is 
daily adding to its strength. In this we see the verifi- 
cation of our text, in that, by the extension of a sen- 
timent fatal to both virtue and freedom, we are already 
feeling a part of the woe on those who build them- 
selves up by injustice and blood. 

II. This war is rapidly developing that dangerous 
sentiment, the love of conquest. 

From the days of Washington, and in accordance 
with his sentiments, it has been conceded that peace 
is the true policy of our Republic ; that war is in its 
very nature dangerous to our liberties ; and that con- 
quest is utterly undesirable. On these principles we 
have prospered and have gradually been gaining the 
confidence and respect of the nations. But the events 
of a few years past have been sweeping away these 
maxims, and that warlike spirit of conquest, which our 
wisest statesmen had previously endeavored to sup- 
press, has broken forth like an inundation, and men are 
found encouraging it as essential to the welfare and 
glory of the nation. The acquisition of Louisiana, 
though regarded with much jealousy at the time, was 
acquiesced in, as a peculiar measure, necessary to the 
safety and the unrestricted use of our own territory 
and rivers ; and it appears not to have greatly aroused 
the ambition of conquest. To the annexation of 
Texas the people were at first generally opposed. 
But, by the skillful management of those who from the 
outset were bent on its acquisition, a plurality of the 



15 

people gave it their sanction. If the question of ex- 
cluding it could again be raised, I fear that the oppo- 
nents of annexation would be found a most meager 
minority. About that time, the annexation of Cali- 
fornia was talked of; but people generally supposed it 
was only in jest. The jest, however, has already 
become earnest. Not only California, but New Mex- 
ico is already annexed, and the public mind scarcely 
attempts to assign limits to our expected acquisitions. 
Thus rapidly has the love of conquest spread. We 
have significant tokens of its growth even in Massa- 
chusetts. When the news of our victories reached 
Boston last May, a single printing office was illumi- 
nated, and great indignation was expressed at that. 
But for the capture of Monterey a salute of one 
hundred guns was fired on the Common. 

The evils of all this are already apparent. We 
have been discussing the constitutionality of annexing 
foreign territory, and whether, if annexed at all, it 
must be by the Treaty-making power, or by vote of 
Congress. We thought we were discussing grave 
questions, having important bearings on our constitu- 
tion and our rights. But, unless Congress will be 
decided, and withal conscientious enough to act on 
their own responsibility and set aside unconstitutional 
doings, we may dispense with these questions in future. 
Here we have military officers taking possession of 
whole provinces, annexing them to the United States, 
establishing civil government, and administering the 
oath of allegiance, and the first that the sovereign peo- 
ple or their Representatives in Congress know of it is, 
that it is done. And the worst of it is, that the major- 
ity, when they hear of it, hurrah in an extasy of joy, 



16 

and never stop to think, so bewildered are they by the 
glory of military success, that in these transactions 
the Constitution and their rights as freemen are tram- 
pled in the dust. It is just in this way that wars are 
dangerous to republics, because in the license of 
war, the Constitution is infringed, and the people 
are so filled with military ardor, that blindest of 
frenzies, as to take no notice of the sacrifice of their 
rights. 

There is no reason to be astonished at the rapid 
increase of this lust of conquest. There is some- 
thing so fascinating in military show, something so 
exhilarating and intoxicating in the imagined glory of 
conquest, that we may expect this spirit, now that 
vent is given to it, to rage like a conflagration. Espe- 
cially is this true of this nation. Our armies cannot 
be made up of such materials as England's. The 
dregs of society will not compose our troops. War 
cannot long continue, but soldiers volunteer or are 
drafted from our own homes ; the pulsations of the 
strife are felt at every fireside, and gradually military 
zeal and revenge fever more and more deeply the 
population. Here is our danger. It is said by those 
who ought to know, that the Administration cannot 
now stop the war, if they try ; that there is such a 
thirst among large portions of the people for conquer- 
ing and beating the Mexicans, that they will not be 
held back, but, like the tiger that has got a taste of 
blood, will suck the carcass dry. No doubt there is 
much truth in this. The government have conjured 
up a spirit, which " will not down at their bidding." 
Here is their terrific responsibility, in having called 
forth this unmanageable spirit, which is now throbbing 



17 

in the untamed breasts of thousands, and propelling 
their furious energies to havoc. 

We might be admonished by the history of the past. 
The French Republicans, full of this spirit of con- 
quest, conceived themselves to be the apostles of free- 
dom, and undertook by arms to convey its blessings 
through Europe. The result was that they were 
themselves brought under military despotism, and, 
after being scourged for a quarter of a century by 
the bloodiest of wars, found themselves at last under 
the dotardly tyranny from which they at first revolted. 
We are beginning to exhibit this very spirit of French 
Propagandism. When we find men urging how mis- 
erably Mexico is governed, and what a blessing it 
would be to her to be brought under our institutions, 
and urging it as a justification of the war, we see an 
appalling resemblance to the arguments by which 
those old French infidels justified themselves in mak- 
ing war on all Europe to spread republicanism ; and 
all that we urge about " extending the area of free- 
dom," differs in nothing from the hypocritical cant 
by which they covered their all-grasping ambition. 

Monarchists perpetually reproach Republics with 
an ambitious disposition to prey on their feebler 
neighbors. This was no slander of ancient Rome, 
and, perhaps, of every powerful Republic of past 
times. And military ambition finally destroyed their 
liberties. This Republic has been an exception, to 
whose glorious example of peace and moderation we 
could point in refutation of the charge. But we can 
do it no longer. We did hope this nation would strike 
out a path of her own, and, occupying a new conti- 
nent, would introduce a new and glorious era in the 

2* 



18 

history of freedom. We do not despair yet. But 7 
in rushing into this career of conquest, she is enter- 
ing the old and common-place track which republics 
trod 2,000 years ago, and, I say it without doubt or 
wavering, if this thirst for conquest be not checked, 
she will perish ingloriously as they. It will be a pity, 
which no tears can adequately lament, if this nation, 
having the opportunity of winning a glory which no 
nation ever won — the glory of freedom and prosperity 
in the arts of peace, the exercise of moderation, and 
the prevalence of intelligence, virtue, and piety, and 
thus by peaceful moral influence, of diffusing liberty 
and blessedness over the globe — shall cast it away, 
and take up instead the old and faded laurels of mili- 
tary triumphs, the common-place renown which hun- 
dreds of human butchers have won before. 

This spirit of aggression has already awakened the 
jealousy of other nations. France, through her prime 
minister, has declared the necessity of extending to 
this continent the European system of the balance of 
power, and her determined opposition to the exten- 
sion of our territories. England, though less explicit, 
is not less jealous. It would not be strange if this 
war should involve us in the turmoil of European 
politics, from which it has always been our settled 
policy to keep free. All European Christendom band- 
ed against the aggressions of France. A career of 
conquest must be expected to arouse similar jealousy, 
and hostilty against us. 

The enlargement of our territories, by increasing 
the dissimilarity of our population and the diversity of 
our local interests, by leading to a larger standing 
army, and by the direct and indirect military influence 



19 

of the conquest, must make our government more 
difficult to be administered and our liberties more pre- 
carious. A single fact may show one class of conse- 
quences which would result from annexing Mexican 
territory. After taking Santa Fe, Gen. Kearney and 
his staff, in full dress, bearing lighted tapers, accom- 
panied through the streets a Popish procession in 
honor of some saint or relic. Indignation struggles 
with emotions of the ridiculous in reading this. If 
we must conquer Mexico, let us not be compelled to 
hear of such contemptible hypocrisy, Jesuitry, and 
idolatry in our military officers. But the fact speaks 
volumes as to one sort of influence which would be 
exerted on our candidates for office, on public meas- 
ures, and the community generally by the extension 
and annexation of our conquests. 

Here, again, we see a verification of the text. In 
the very act of grasping new territory by violence and 
blood, we are grasping the curse of the Almighty and 
hugging destruction to our bosoms. 

III. The war is producing recklessness of moral 
principle. 

We in Massachusetts look at it in the light of natu- 
ral justice, and generally condemn it. But, if the 
tone of many leading papers may be taken as an index 
of public sentiment, the impression is extensively 
prevalent that enlarged and statesman-like minds need 
look only at the advantages expected from the war. 
The question of its natural justice is disposed of, in 
many quarters, as a mere speculation in metaphysics, 
with which practical men have nothing to do. We 
find in some of the most respectable newspapers of 



Northern cities sentiments like the following. " The 
Constitution has nothing to do with the war." " No 
question occurs to the public mind as to the morality 
of it. Contempt for the Mexicans does not allow our 
people to consider this point. They look to the fact 
that the Mexicans have boundless territory which they 
do not improve." " Their imbecility gives us a title 
of possession as good as theirs." " It is the work of 
destiny. It could no more have been avoided than 
expedited." " The history of the United States pre- 
sents an entire series of innovations on all established 
rules of government and religion.^! !) Our whole his- 
tory is a miracle. Half of its wonders are yet to be 
wrought out." Such is the robber-logic of multitudes, 
both at the North and South, in justifying the war. 

It is interesting to notice how similar circumstances 
lead to similar ideas. Destiny has been the usual plea 
of rapacious conquerers. It was perpetually in the 
mouth of Napoleon. And now we find it on the lips 
of our countrymen. No sooner do we begin the con- 
queror's work, than we learn the conqueror's lan- 
guage. It is a plea which strikes at the root of all 
virtue. Our destiny to grind in pieces a feeble and 
distracted state, to murder its citizens, destroy its 
cities, and seize its territories ? The language is an 
insult to the God that made us ; it is laying the blame 
of our wickedness on God himself. It shows how in- 
defensible is the cause which needs to be sustained by 
such a plea, and how blunted their moral feelings who 
can seriously urge it. So of all the arguments above 
cited, they are the well-known, stereotype arguments 
of unjust aggressors. 

Here, again, we may see an exemplification of the 



21 

text. This attempt to aggrandize ourselves by blood 
is cutting the sinews of virtue and religion, which are 
the stability of our institutions, and dethroning the 
majesty of the Constitution and of Law. Already has 
it produced an awful recklessness of moral obligation, 
and with terrific rapidity is it ripening us for the sickle 
of avenging justice. 

IV. It remains only to consider the connection of 
this war with slavery. 

It would be easy to prove from documentary evi- 
dence that the extension and strengthening of slavery 
was a leading object in the annexation of Texas. 
The present war, as is well known, is a consequence 
of that annexation. Therefore it is a war which 
slavery has brought upon us. I have not time to 
enter on the proof of this ; nor is it needful, as in va- 
rious ways, it has been spread before you in the pub- 
lic prints, and 1 suppose, few, if any of you doubt it. 
Let us take facts as they are. We find ourselves at 
war with Mexico. Our troops are penetrating the 
country in various directions, taking possession of its 
provinces and formally annexing them to the United 
States, by the authority, as the officers tell us, of the 
President. Ought not every patriot to ask, what is 
the object of this invasion and on the accomplishment of 
what is it to cease ? Is it to obtain payment of a paltry 
debt of six millions ? Believe it who will. Is it not to 
take possession of Mexican territory and annex it to the 
the United States? The public sentiment says, Yes. 
The proclamations of our officers, annexing conquered 
territory by the President's authority, say, Yes. And 
is it the intention to settle this territory, on which now 



22 

not a slave breathes, with slaveholders and slaves, as 
the once free State of Texas was settled, and then 
admit it, divided into slaveholding States, into the 
Union ? We need not look at these questions as par- 
tizans. On vital points like these, we have some- 
thing higher to seek than the integrity of a party. It 
were a shame to blink at questions like these for the 
fear of losing or for the sake of carrying a party 
measure. I call you to look at them as patriots, as 
men, as friends of humanity, as uncompromising op- 
ponents, as every Massachusetts man claims to be, of 
slavery. Look at the prospect opening before us. 
Consider what a stigma will be branded forever on 
this Republic, if she uses her might to seize the terri- 
tory of Mexico — territory, behind us as we say she is 
in civilization, liberty, and religion, from which she 
swept, years ago, every vestige of domestic slavery — 
if we seize this free territory, set up again the system 
of slavery in it, annex it to our own country, and 
throw the powerful arms of our strength and pro- 
tection, in loving embrace, around this institution of 
wickedness. Yet there is not room for a shadow of 
doubt that it will be done, unless Northern men, of 
all parties, take a more decided stand than ever yet 
they have done, in uncompromising opposition to such 
measures. There is reason for devout gratitude that 
we have had one proof that such decision may here- 
after be expected. I refer to the vote of the House 
of Representatives in the last session, that slavery 
should be forever excluded from all territory which 
might be annexed in the treaty which was then con- 
templated. The motion was made by a Democrat of 
Pennsylvania, and passed by a majority of six, sus- 



23 

tained by votes of Northern members of both par- 
ties. 

The extreme measures of the last few years mani- 
festly for the support and extension of slavery, ought 
to open every man's eyes to our danger from this 
source, and to lead every man to determined opposi- 
tion to every public measure designed to extend 
slavery. I have no desire to see a Northern party ar- 
rayed against the South. But since the South are 
carrying measures with so high a hand, we have no 
alternative but to resist in self-defense. They tell us 
we have nothing to do with slavery. But the fact is 
daily becoming more apparent that we have something 
to suffer from it, if nothing to do with it. But the 
South themselves have taught us the falsity of their 
own maxim. Have they not in Congress given their 
vote to sanction the slavery illegally extended over the 
free domain of Texas, and to admit that State to the 
Union ? Are we not all waging a war which slavery 
has brought on us ? The South have themselves 
taught us that the North, that Congress have some- 
thing to do with slavery. Shall they vote in Congress 
to sanction the extension of slavery over free territo- 
ries and admit them to the Union, and then shall they 
turn round and tell us that we have no right, that 
Congress have no right to oppose the extension of 
slavery ? It certainly becomes us to give a serious 
and earnest attention to this matter, and to act with 
determined resolution against the extension of the 
evil. Since the South seem bent on adding foreign 
territory indefinitely for the formation of slaveholding 
States, let it be the deliberate, the well understood, 
and settled policy of Northern men of every party, 



24 

that no more foreign territory in which slaveholding 
exists shall be added to the Union, and that no more 
slaveholding States shall be admitted. It is a position 
to which the South have driven us. And I am con- 
vinced, whatever may be said of our past yielding 
and conciliating policy, if we fail hereafter to oppose 
to our utmost the further extension of slavery, we be- 
come guilty ourselves of aiding and abetting it, and 
perpetuating its unspeakable abominations. Slavery 
is itself a system of self-aggrandizement by injustice 
and blood. We need not wonder at the complication of 
woes in which we find ourselves involved through our 
connection with it. Every law of self-defense, as 
well as of justice and humanity, demands that we op- 
pose its extension. 

And now, all that I ask further is, that you will se- 
riously consider the evils on which I have commented, 
and, so far as you believe I have spoken truth, will 
offer your prayers, and put forth your influence, not 
only that this war may cease, but that the evil senti- 
ments and institutions which have occasioned and 
which perpetuate it, and which are strengthened and 
extended by it, may be done away. 



3477-110-1 

Lot 99 









-^ 









••■-.^ 



^ 






\> * • • *- 












v ^ 



<* *' . 





















^ 




^o^ 
^ 




o j.0 -r, • i 










^ V ^ 



c ^ 

^ ^ 




v - * AT *^ 



<u *' - ; > ^ 







: *> o^ 



. *•-* <** 



jT c. 




^ v 



►v » ' • < 



^v * 




0^ * 










°^ "•-*° 






^ ^ 



4? & oVJ6a\>r» aV -^ 



♦ a_v <^ .5 



.."•* ^c 



0_ *o • * * .^ 







y o°"°*. <z 



<\ ♦/TVi* <0 



,. /\ -jj»w.- .♦♦-% 






» -^. v 




1l 






:v»* ^ 











v **% IW ; /\ l ™* : ^^ : X 









\/ 



^ ** 



^ < 









% ^ ^ 






r»^ . - . , 



^K A" 9, 



, r > 






*° 










L # « *o/ ' J>' ••^••^ 



» ^ 



<*°* 







. * v N ,*i^j> ^ 4? •; 



V ,* 

















^°^ 




**o* »'fi 



^ 










VV 













y c* 







X 



«• ^ 



w v 










c°\^.% 



j^, 'O, /,^lA 



4? **'•* ^ 







-^ o ° " ° ♦ ^ 




i 



^^ 









s >° >°-nK 



^ 



\* .• ^ ""-^ * ' 



c* SA 









"by 



wy 



^ •"• <« 


















e.. "" , * ^ T 









